(June 15, 2013 at 6:07 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:(June 9, 2013 at 10:34 pm)BettyG Wrote: James Moore says that "today scientists will admit that no one knows enough about 'natural law' to say that any event is necessarily a violation of it.
Therein lies the usual problem with theists. If it is not understood, it is automatically supernatural and thus God.
Goodness forbid theists actually attempt to understand something without automatically assuming it is too divine to be understood.
(June 9, 2013 at 10:34 pm)BettyG Wrote: John Montgomery denotes that he anti-supernatural position is both "philosophically and scientifically irresponsible."
I believe science is hardly the place for man to prove the supernatural, considering that science deals with natural law. If, though I do not see it ever happening, science does happen to stumble across proof of a deity's existence through natural law, that would be an entirely different matter.
(June 9, 2013 at 10:34 pm)BettyG Wrote: "But can the modern man accept a "miracle" such as the resurrection? The answer is a surprising one: The resurrection has to be accepted by us just because we are modern men.
That is not an explanation so much as it is an excuse. It does not have to be accepted whatsoever.
You are a good disciple of David Hume, I see.
Humes said,"Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? It not, commit it to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry an illusion."
The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful expressions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability itself is neither true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful. So why do you put your faith in it? It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Can you empirically verify that science is the only way to know truth? No. You cannot. It is a philosophical assumption, not scientific. Neither can anyone prove that reason and logic is not a valid means of knowing truth. I favor both science and reason/logic instead of just one.
Neither can anyone prove scientifically that God does not act in this world. You cannot put that in a test tube either.